If the GM-1 was sold as 'Body only' I might be tempted ...

Started 6 months ago | Discussions thread
eastvillager
Contributing MemberPosts: 948Gear list
Like?
Re: Don't underestimate the quality of the 12-32 lens
In reply to Tom Axford, 6 months ago

Nice test thanks. As for the OP. If you think the GX7 is too expensive or the GM1 should come body only thats great but who really cares. This gentlemans test adds something to the mix and our understanding of photography and photography equipment. The trouble with much of this forum is it's whiners who have nothing to add to dialogue.

Tom Axford wrote:

ericN2 wrote:

- why should we HAVE to buy a lesser quality lens on the GM-1 to acquire the Body, for the benefits that does give...

I'm not sure how you define 'lesser quality' with respect to the kit 12-32 lens. It is certainly smaller aperture, but the image quality is excellent.

In fact, in some respects its IQ exceeds the Lumix 12-35mm f/2.8.

Coincidently, earlier today I did some quick comparisons of the 12-32 and the 12-35 for flare by shooting directly into the sun (about the worst possible situation for flare). Here are the results (the images have no pictorial merit, they were done purely to test the flare):

12-32mm f/3.5-5.6 lens at 18mm f/8

12-35mm f/2.8 lens at 18mm f/8

As you can see, the new 12-32 is remarkably free of ghost images, which are arguably more objectionable than the overall veiling effect of strong flare.

The 12-32 is a remarkably good lens, particularly for its small size.

 eastvillager's gear list:eastvillager's gear list
Nikon D700 Nikon D4 Nikon D800 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GM1 +6 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow